1

School of Language & Comparative Cultural Studies,

the University of Queensland

Master of Arts in Translation and Interpreting (Eng lish and

Chinese)

CHIN7180 – Thesis

A Study of Translating Irony in Cao Yu’s Sunrise

Course Convenor: Dr Leong Ko Supervisor : Dr Rosemary Roberts

Student: Chan Yang 41318744 30 May 2008

©2010 The Author

Not to be reproduced in any way except for the purposes of research or study as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968

2

Table of Content ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….. Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………............ 1.1 Background ………………………….............................................................

1.2 Purpose………………………………………………………………………. 1.3 Chapter Overview

Chapter 2 Literature Review………………………………………………………..

2.1 Translation of Theatre……………………………………………………….. 2.1.1 Theatrical Language Issues……………………………………………. 2.1.2 The Language of Irony ………………………………………………... 2.1.3 Irony and Linguistics…………………………………………….......... 2.1.4 Cultural Issues………………………………………………………….

2.2 Translation and Pragmatic Approaches ……………………………………... 2.2.1 Foreignization and Domestication…………………………………….. 2.2.2 Translatability and Dynamic Equivalence…………………………….. 2.2.3 Context in relevance theory…………………………………………… 2.2.4 Pragmatic Approach……………………………………………………

Chapter 3 Research Questions and Methodology………………………………….

3.1 Research Questions …………………………………………………………. 3.2. Methodology…………………………………………………………….......

Chapter 4 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………..

4.1 Irony Data Classification …………………………………………………… 4.2 Irony Analysis……………………………………………………………….. 4.2.1The Case of Irony Category (i)………………………………………… 4.2.2The Case of Irony Category (ii)………………………………………...

4.3 Translation Strategy Frequency of Use……………………………………… Chapter 5 Findings & Conclusion………………………………………………….. 5.1 Irony Category (i) …………………………………………………………… 5.2 Irony Category (ii) …………………………………………………………..

5.3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………... Bibliography…………………………………………………... …………………….

1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 9 9 9 12 14 15 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 27 30 31 31 32 33 34

3

A Study of Translating Irony in Cao Yu’s Sunrise

ABSTRACT

This study aims to show the usefulness of pragmatics for irony analysis in Cao Yu’s

Sunrise, and investigate the different translation strategies that are applied to translating

irony in this play’s English translation by A. C. Barnes. The recognition of irony is

culturally dependent and not globally unified. On the other hand, irony is so hard to

define because it always seems to include some type of subjective feeling. In this respect,

issues involved in translating irony present a great challenge to theatre translators. This

paper employs the pragmatic approach and translation strategies to analyze irony

examples in Sunrise. According to the findings, the context is vital for the understanding

of irony in all examples. Victims and audiences’ knowledge and ideologies also influence

their abilities to recognize irony. Literal translation strategy is most frequently used to

translate irony examples in Sunrise. The context and relevant knowledge of the source

language’s culture is important for the translator and target audiences to understand the

ST’s irony. The examples showed that the translator achieved linguistic and cultural

equivalence in his translation by employing various different translation strategies, such

as literal translation, domestication free translation and omission. In particular, free

translation, omission and domestication were employed most commonly by the translator

to tackle those culturally-specific terms and phrases, which have made a literal translation

hard for the target audiences to comprehend.

Keywords: irony, pragmatics, translation strategies, context, cultural issues, theatre

translation, translatability, Sunrise

4

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Theatre language is verbal words that enhance the performance, and is the reason for

characters to be dramatic. As Muriel Bradbrook writes: ‘I presume that everyone would

agree that verbal language is the most sophisticated form of language’ (Bradbrook, 1972:

37), and developed this by writing that: ‘…verbal language is the mark of civilization, the

most difficult and most flexible, the most permanent and the most integrative element in

the mixed art of the drama’ (Bradbrook, 1972: 49). Theatrical language is designed and

used for dramatic purpose. Even what we have so far called normal may be an artificial

stage language, poetic language, or it may be a dialect or a language stylized for

particular purposes, such as irony. In Cao Yu’s Sunrise, there are many interesting verbal

dialogues. Dramatic irony applied by the playwright is one of the most powerful tools

that contributes to the success of this play and enables this play to be a remarkable work

in Chinese contemporary drama.

Perhaps, the language of irony is one of the most notable features in the theatre. At the

same time, irony provides a way in which the implicit information is conveyed in a

dramatic text, which enables the playwright to become more capable of communicating a

richness of ideas, feelings and impressions that are not necessarily expressed in words.

Moreover, the most difficult type of style to realize and recognize in language is the style

of irony, because the recognition of irony is culturally dependent and not globally unified.

Additionally, irony is so hard to define because it always seems to include some type of

subjective feeling. In this respect, issues involved in translating irony present a great

challenge to theatre translators. Translators of theatres need to deploy a whole range of

strategies for translating irony that take the context, cultural factors and diverse

characters’ ideologies into account.

5

1.2 Purpose

This study aims to show the usefulness of pragmatics for irony analysis in Cao Yu’s

Sunrise, and investigate the different translation strategies that are applied to translating

irony in this play’s English translation by A. C. Barnes. More specifically, the study

examines to what extent the irony in the source text (ST) is conveyed to the target text

(TT), and which translation strategy is more likely to be applied to irony translation in

this play. In addition, this paper focuses on what translation strategies are applied to

translate irony examples, but not intend to evaluate the accuracy of the English

translation of Sunrise.

1.3 Chapter Overview

This paper starts from a review of pragmatic theories related to irony and translation

strategies in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, research questions will be established based on the

literature review. A clear statement of methodology for the study will be given. Chapter 4

focuses on a detailed data analysis which includes both the original Chinese text and its

English translation. The last chapter will discuss the findings and make a conclusion.

6

Chapter 2 Literature review

2.1 Translation of Theatre

Translation of theatre presents its own particular challenges due to the nature of theatre as

public performance in oral form, these includes the difficulty, complexity and

performability of the nature of theatre language, as well as considerable cultural issues.

2.1.1 Theatrical Language Issues

Theatre language is verbal words that enhance the performance, and is the reason for

characters to be dramatic. It can be assumed that the normal way of communication in a

play is that of the language used by the playwright. Roman Ingarden (1973) draws a

distinction between two different texts which he argues constitute ‘a play’: the main text

and the side text. The main text is considered to be the words and sentences; the side text

is considered to be items like the stage directions. It is a view which maintains a

privileged status for verbal language and a privileged controlling status for the dramatic

text as a literary text. Muriel Bradbrook also writes: ‘I presume that everyone would

agree that verbal language is the most sophisticated form of language’ (Bradbrook, 1972:

37), and developed this by writing that: ‘…verbal language is the mark of civilization, the

most difficult and most flexible, the most permanent and the most integrative element in

the mixed art of the drama’ (Bradbrook, 1972: 49).

Theatrical language is designed and used for dramatic purpose. Even what we have so far

called normal may be an artificial stage language, poetic language, or it may be a dialect

or a language stylized for particular purposes, such as irony. On the other hand, due to the

nature of spoken words, there is a considerable limitation on length for the dialogue

sentences of theatre. However, those sentences with length limitation play the most

important roles in theatre, which include delivering the context, expressing characters’

explicit or implicit meanings, and reflecting their social and personal relationships. In this

case, the diversity, complexity and performability of theatre language require

complicated and comprehensive concerns on language use from translators.

7

Understanding those features of theatrical language is essential for my study. Since the

data I collect is from the famous contemporary Chinese play Sunrise, all features of

theatrical language mentioned above are relevant to this play.

2.1.2 The Language of Irony

In Sunrise, there are many interesting verbal dialogues. Dramatic irony applied by the

playwright is one of the most powerful tools that contributes to the success of this play

and enables this play to be a remarkable work in Chinese contemporary drama.

Perhaps, the language of irony is one of the most notable features in the theatre. At the

same time, the most difficult type of style to realize and recognize in language is the style

of irony, because the recognition of irony is culturally dependent and not globally unified.

It is described by Newmark (1993: 132) as ‘the most serious and powerful weapon in

satirical comedy and farce, particularly when used to expose pomposity and deceit or to

deflate self-importance’. However, in non-comedy text, irony is also responsible for the

similar functions by means of positive or negative, and explicit or implicit forms. Drama,

by definition, is the story of conflict. No conflict, no drama. Irony can be the highly

effective tools that indirectly or directly reflect conflicts in a play. It is typical culture-

bound reference, and it indicates and is attributed to particular elements of context in

terms of personal, social and power relations. As mentioned above, the recognition of

irony is culturally dependent and not globally unified. In this respect, issues involved in

translating irony present a great challenge to theatre translators. Translators of theatres

need to deploy a whole range of strategies for translating irony that take the context,

cultural factors and diverse characters’ ideologies into account.

2.1.3 Irony and Linguistics

Commonly, an ironic meaning has been described as the opposition, negation or

contradiction of the sentence meaning. However, the ironic meaning may also agree with

the speaker’s meaning of utterance. With regard to these arguments, a number of scholars

have discussed their approaches and theories. This section focuses on a review of major

scholars’ works on the issue.

8

Grice

Conversation implicature refers to verbal communication going beyond just the words

that people say. Paul Grice recognizes that people could say one thing and mean another.

The argument that Grice puts forward is that people communicate cooperatively, the

Cooperative Principle provides a set of ‘rules’ that humans are able to employ

subconsciously whilst communicating with one another, thus proving the validity of

conversational implicature. The following four Maxims by Grice (1989) have been

developed to enforce the Cooperative Principle:

(i) Maxim of Quantity: give the amount of information that is necessary; do not

give too much or too little.

(ii) Maxim of Quality: say only that which you know to be true or what you can

support.

(iii) Maxim of Relevance: what you say should be relevant to the conversation.

(iv) Maxim of Manner: say what you need to say in a way that is appropriate to the

message you wish to convey and which will be understood by the receiver.

Grice does not, however, assume that all people should constantly follow these maxims.

Instead, he finds it interesting when these were ‘flouted’ or ‘violated’ (either purposefully

or unintentionally breaking the maxims) by speakers, which would imply some other,

hidden meaning. The importance is in what is not said. For example: “It's raining” is in

violation of quality and quantity of spoken language; however, in context (e.g. when

someone has suggested a picnic) the reasoning behind this sentence becomes clear.

In his seminal article Logic and Conversation, Grice (1989) mentions irony initially in

connection with one of the definitions attributed to Aristotle — ‘saying something but

meaning the opposite.’ Speaker A makes a statement which ‘he does not believe, and the

audience knows that A knows that this is obvious to the audience’ (p. 34). In making this

statement, A wants to communicate something else. Hence, the speaker flouts the Maxim

of Quality.

9

In Further Notes on Logic and Conversation (Grice, 1989), even though he considers the

ironic tone of voice mandatory for expressing ironic feelings or attitudes in many cases,

Grice doubts that this tone exists as a separate entity. A hearer only recognizes the

ironical tone in connection with an ironic remark, which is usually contemptuous in

nature. Grice, thus, restricts the purpose of irony to criticism and expression of negativity.

Grice’s theory has been criticized for being inadequate. His theory (i) can only describe

how irony may be the result of a violation of one of the maxims, and (ii) cannot account

for ironic instances where sentence and speaker meaning conflate (Kaufer, 1981).

Grice’s theory will be argued with examples in my study. The irony examples I collect

not only include those where sentence and speaker meaning differ, but also those where

sentence and speaker meaning conflate. In addition, the data analysis will demonstrate

that a hearer also can realize the ironic tone in a sentence without a habitually ironic

remark.

Culter

Like Grice, Culter (1974) argues that the meaning of ironic utterances is the reverse of

their literal meaning. She recognizes two types of irony. Spontaneous irony appears out

of the immediate context and does not refer to a previous context. On the other hand, in

their use of provoked irony, speakers refer to some previous event or utterance. In order

to achieve ironic interpretations, speakers employ a certain tone which somehow casts

doubt on the literal utterance. While the literal meaning always materializes as desirable,

the ironic reading becomes something negative. Culter defines a typical ironic utterance

as a simple declaration whose literal reading is approbatory.

Sperber & Wilson

Sperber and Wilson (1981) stress the dimension of shared background knowledge. They

note that most ironic utterances refer to some previously shared event or utterance. The

Mention Theory of Irony (Sperber & Wilson, 1981, 1986 and 1992) has been one of the

most influential theories of irony.

10

According to the Mention Theory, a speaker can either use or mention an expression. In

the case of irony, the mentioned ironic proposition echoes something previously

experienced or said. Additionally, a ‘speaker mentions a proposition in such a way as to

make clear that he rejects it as ludicrously false, inappropriate, or irrelevant’ (Sperber &

Wilson, 1981: 308). The intended hearer recognizes the speaker’s attitude to the

proposition mentioned. If used for ironic purpose, this mentioned proposition appears in

form of a direct quotation. Wilson & Sperber (1992) note the restrictiveness of this

statement and now no longer describe irony solely in terms of mention but also consider

‘verbal irony….a variety of indirect quotation’ (p. 59). Thus they propose to ‘analyze

indirect speech reports, echoic utterances and irony not as literal interpretations of an

attributed thought or utterance, but simply interpretations, literal or non-literal, of an

attributed thought or utterance’ (p. 66).

Ironists convey their negative attitude toward the ironic proposition as well as toward the

intended victim by using an ironic tone of voice. The ironic tone of voice ‘is merely one

of a variety of tones of voice (doubtful, approving, contemptuous, etc) that speakers may

use to indicate their attitudes toward the proposition mentioned’ (Sperber & Wilson, 1981:

311).

Clark & Gerrig

In response to the Mention Theory, Clark and Gerrig (1984) ‘expand Grice’s few remarks

on irony into a pretense theory of irony’ (p. 121). Ironists pretend to be ignorant and slip

into a new role — the role of the pretender. In this new role, they leave behind their own

voice in exchange for a new ironic voice.

The participants’ shared background knowledge conditions the recognition of irony. An

ironist addresses only the initiated participants. ‘A listener’s understanding of an ironic

utterance depends crucially on the common ground he or she believes is shared by the

ironist and the audience — their mutual beliefs, mutual knowledge, and mutual

suppositions’ (p. 124). With these pre-conditions, Clark and Gerrig set out to find ways

of recognizing irony.

11

The irony-related theories discussed above will be applied as a tool to analyze the

selected data, such as Grice’s four maxims. In addition, some statements will be argued

by providing evidences from the data.

2.1.4 Cultural Issues

One of greatest challenges for a play after its domestic release is reaching an international

audience and being successful abroad. In this process of internationalization, linguistic

difference is one of major obstacles, and translation of theatre has thus taken an important

role. However, culture and language are always deeply interrelated. Transferring theatres

from one period or one culture to another is so much more than translating the words

from one language into another. Since it brings cultures into contact with one another, in

a particularly direct and immediate manner, translation of theatre raises considerable

cross-cultural issues. Language and culture may thus be seen as being closely related and

both aspects must be considered for translation.

2.2 Translation and Pragmatic Approaches

In this section, a review of relevant translation approaches and pragmatic theories in

relations to theatre translation, and irony translation in particular, is provided, including

foreignization/domestication model, context in relevance theory, pragmatic approach,

translatability and dynamic equivalence.

2.2.1 Foreignization and Domestication

With regard to cultural issues in translation, Venuti’s notions of ‘foreignization’ and

‘domestication’ provide a useful conceptual approach in the area of intercultural transfer.

The foreignization/domestication model has been acclaimed as a powerful tool to

conceptualise the interface between the source culture and the target culture.

According to Venuti (1992: 5), domestication strategy is that ‘a fluent strategy performs a

labor of acculturation which domesticates the foreign text, making it intelligible and even

familiar to the target-language reader, providing him or her with the narcissistic

experience of recognizing his or her own culture in a cultural other, enacting an

12

imperialism that extends the dominion of transparency with other ideological discourses

over a different culture.’ Foreignization, on the other hand, takes the target reader

towards the source text with a defamiliarising effect, and consists in ‘preserving linguistic

and cultural differences by deviating from prevailing domestic values’ (Venuti, 1998:

240). Following Schleiermacher (1813) and Berman (1985), Venuti claims that the

foreignizing method is ‘highly desirable’ in an effort ‘to restrain the ethnocentric violence

of translation’ (1995a: 20) and ‘to make the translated text a site where a cultural other is

not erased but manifested’ (1998: 242). Venuti (1995b: 23) also clearly argues, for

instance, that translation is inevitably domesticating since it is usually made to meet the

needs and values of the domestic culture and, therefore, famously advocates foreignizing

strategies because they retain the foreignness of the original and encourage readers of

translations to become more open to cultural differences. Although Venuti advocates

foreignizing translation, he also aware (1995a) of some of its contradictions, namely that

it is a subjective and relative term which still involves some domestication because it

translates a source text for a target culture and depends on dominant target-culture values

to become visible when it departs from them. Importantly, it should also be pointed out at

this point that domestication and foreignization are considered by Venuti (1999) to be

aimed at promoting thinking and research. This paper does not intend to question here the

quality of Venuti's arguments as such, i.e. his advocacy of foreignising translation

projects, but rather the notions of foreignisation and domestication as a conceptual

framework traditionally used to discuss cultural transfer in translation.

An influential theory by Nida is built on the premise that message of the original text can

be translated to exert the same effect as that perceived by the original receptors (Gentzler,

2001). According to Nida, the translated version should provide the same response within

target language readers without being distorted by time or cultural interference. This

argument corresponds with Venuti’s theory. According to Venuti, terms and their

meanings may change with time or location, and what does not change is that

domestication and foreignization deal with ‘the question of how much a translation

assimilates a foreign text to the translating language and culture, and how much it rather

signals the differences of that text’ (Venuti, 1999).

13

Several examples are given in the following section to illuminate how domestication and

foreignization are employed in the translation process. Malavašič used both

domestication and foreignization strategies in translating Uncle Tom’s Cabin or Negro

Life in the Slave States of America into Slovenian, which is an American children

literature. Considering the fact that most of his target audiences are Slovenian children,

domestication strategies were particularly used by Malavašič. For example, in the

translation version, he used many explanations to help the Slovenian readers such as the

absent signs in the Slovenian semiotic space, racial characteristics for the understanding

of the treatment of slaves and non-whites, the background of the title of the ‘United

States of America’ and the geographical expression ‘North-American’ ( Mazi-Leskovar,

2003). His endeavors have helped readers to reduce or eliminate the barriers to the

understanding of the text.

According to Mark and Moira, foreignization is ‘to designate the type of translation in

which a TT is produced which deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining

something of the foreignness of the original’ (Mark & Moira, 1997). Take Fitzgerald’s

novel The Blue Flower for example, she used many German words such as ‘Gaul, for

horse or nag’, and ‘Germanisms such as “the Bernhard” or “the Mandelson” to be

“amusing” (Faull, 2004). All her attempts are try to make the English reader familiar with

the living background of the author – Novalis, and try to produce the same effect that

original readers experienced from this novel. Foreignization, as Venuti denoted, is to

‘register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader

abroad’ (Mark & Moira, 1997).

To sum up, as Schleiermacher stated, foreignization or domestication is an approach that

‘Either the translator leaves the author as much as possible in peace and moves the reader

towards him or he leaves the reader in peace and moves the author towards him’ (Faull,

K. M. 2004).

14

2.2.2 Translatability and Dynamic Equivalence

According to Malinowski, ‘The translatability of words or texts between two languages is

not a matter of mere readjustment of verbal symbols. It must always be based on a

unification of cultural context. Even when two cultures have much in common, real

understanding and establishment of a community of linguistic implements is always a

matter of difficult, laborious and delicate readjustment’ (Wellwarth, 1981).

Between two languages, Van den Broeck (1981: 84) develops four principles of

translatability, which are:

(i) Translatability is high when a pair of languages is of a close basic ‘type’,

provided that the conditions under (ii) and (iii) are fulfilled.

(ii) Translatability is high when there is contact between source language and

target language.

(iii) Translatability is high when the general cultural evolution is in source

language and target language proceeded on parallel lines.

(iv) Translatability is high when translation involves no more than a single kind of

information. In other words, a text is more translatable if it displays

information of a single type than if it is ‘complex’ in that various types, and

hence a greater quantity of information are involved.

These general principles of translatability can be applied to the translation of irony

and insult. When written or spoken texts of irony and insult are translated, their

culture-dependency becomes very obvious. Each culture realizes irony and insult

according to distinctive circumstances. Some cultures show some similarities and

base irony and insult on comparable and sometimes even common experiences. If the

two languages are in a relationship of high translatability, the translation of irony and

insult, despite their differences in realization, should still be possible. However,

although there is a high translatability between two languages, the texts of irony and

insult appear to obstruct translation because of their complexity. In addition, if there

15

is no a relatively low relationship of translatability between the two languages, more

difficulties arise from the translation of irony and insult.

With regard to the latter situations, the principle of equivalence can be employed to

solve the problems. ‘Dynamic equivalence is…to be defined in terms of the degree to

which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in

substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language. This response

can never be identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but

there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have

failed to accomplish its purpose.’ (Nida, 1982: 24). ‘The closest natural equivalent to

the source language message’ is the goal of dynamic equivalence for Nida. He thinks

that a good translator attaches much importance to the equivalence of messages

conveyed in the translated work so that the target language readers will respond to the

translation similarly as the source language readers to the original.

There are four basic requirements of a translation in order to achieve equivalent

response between two languages, which are:

(i) making sense;

(ii) conveying the spirit and message of the original;

(iii) having a natural and easy form of expression;

(iv) producing the same or similar response to the original.

Nida’s “dynamic equivalence” focuses on reader’s response, and stress naturalness of a

rendering, which is in essence a domesticating translation. Nida puts forth that ‘a

translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression’ and ‘tries

to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture’

(1969). The phrase ‘naturalness of expression’ signals the importance of a fluent strategy

to this theory of translation, and it is obvious that influence involves Venuti’s

domestication.

16

2.2.3 Context in relevance theory

No word can be dealt with isolated and detached from the context in which it stands.

Within the relevance theory framework, the notion of ‘context’ is of central importance.

According to Sperber and Wilson (1986: 15), the context of an utterance is ‘the set of

premises used in interpreting [it]’. Here we can find that the notion of ‘context’ not only

means preceding utterances or text, situational circumstances, or cultural factors, but also

refers to part of the hearer’s cognitive environment. As Sperber and Wilson (1986: 39)

point out, one’s cognitive environment is ‘a set of facts that are manifest to him’. It is

clear that the cognitive environment is his mental environment when the hearer processes

an utterance or a text, and the notion of ‘cognitive environment’, which acts on the basis

of the external environment, stresses the importance of the information available for

processing the utterance or the text.

In addition, successful communication hinges on the potential context that is mutually

shared by the reader and the communicator. That is, only when the communicator’s

intention and the receptor’s expectation meet, can communication be a success; thus ‘a

crucial part of the context is the audience’s expectations’ (Gutt 1996: 240). The

expectations are those the audience has of the target language texts. These expectations

are, in fact, part of the context which the target language brings to the text, and they are

necessary for the success or failure of the communication act as a whole.

The notion of context in relevance theory, as Gutt (1996) points out, on the one hand, is

very comprehensive, but it is delimited and defined in each instance by the criterion of

optimal relevance on the other hand. In other words, in order to make an utterance

optimally relevant to its audience, certain contextual implications have to be taken into

consideration.

2.2.4 Pragmatic Approach

In a classic definition of irony in drama, Fowler defines it in terms of two different

audiences, one which is in-the-know and another one which is not in-the-know. An ironic

17

moment in drama occurs when the audience knows things of which the characters

involved on stage are ignorant (1926: 295). Booth, like Fowler, also describes irony in

narrative fiction as a ‘device for including as well as excluding’ audiences (1961: 304); it

is a device where the irony is based on the action, not on any particular linguistic feature.

Geoffrey Leech was the first to define irony in literature in a linguistic sense. He holds

that all tropes in literature occur when the reader is led to believe that some textual items

require further interpretation, for example, linguistic features are put in the foreground in

order to be interpreted for expressive content (1969: 172). However, the field of

pragmatics has yielded most interesting findings applicable to literature and translation.

Pragmatics derives from the philosopher Charles Morris as the study of ‘the relations of

signs to interpreters’ (Morris, 1971: 43). Leech (1981) suggests that ‘pragmatics is the

study of how utterances have meaning in situations’, which contrasts with sematics,

denoting meaning in a general sense that is not linked to particular receptors in particular

situations. Similarly, Mona Baker defined pragmatics as ‘the study of language in use. It

is the study of meaning, not as generated by the linguistics system but as conveyed and

manipulated by participants in a communicative situation.’ (Baker, 1992: 217). In the

domain of pragmatics, the best place can be found to describe irony. A pragmatic

approach considers the context vital for the understanding of irony.

Sperber and Wilson (1986: 238) explained irony in terms of ‘echoic second-degree

interpretation’. Hatim and Mason have applied Sperber and Wilson’s description of irony

to the translation of literature. In expressing irony, they agree with Sperber and Wilson’s

idea that ‘the speaker is echoing a point of view in order to display some attitude towards

it’ and also that when interpreting irony the readers needs to enact a second-degree

interpretation. Hatim and Mason affirm that audiences, or text readers, do this by means

of ‘matching the view apparently expressed with any discordant view expressed co-

textually.’ (97-100).

Implicature is ‘what the speaker means or implies rather than what s/he says’ (Baker,

1992: 223). Barker considers it as a form of pragmatic inference. Clearly, irony is the

type of language that shows a literary form of implicature. In translation, it is very

18

difficult to keep all the references to social conditions and all implicit meanings, as well

as to maintain the balance between what is said and what unsaid, what is explicit and

what implied or implicated (Grice, 1989: 24–5). Massimiliano Morini’s study (2007) in

particular discusses this problem from the perspective of pragmatics. In his research

paper, Jane Austen’s Emma is chosen as a source text for the data analysis, because it

displays rich and complicated personal and social relations, and its dialogues always

mean much more than what the characters say: while apparently respecting the rules of

good manners – denoting what can and cannot be said in a polite conversation – the

characters manage to imply and suggest unpleasant, impolite, and even offensive

meanings. The source text is compared with three Italian target texts in order to verify if

those relationships and balance are kept, erased, or altered in translation. Morini found

that, in translation, not only those elements, such as lexicon, register,

foreignization/domestication strategies and equivalence, should be taken into

consideration, but also pragmatic and implicature analysis should be involved in

translation analysis.

19

Chapter 3 Research Questions and Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

According to the relevant theories and translation strategies discussed in the previous

chapter, this study addresses the following questions:

• If there is no specific ironic remark in the utterance, how to recognize the irony?

• Is an ironic meaning always opposite or negative to the surface meaning of

sentence? Can the ironic meaning also agree with the speaker’s meaning of

utterance?

• Does the context play a significant role in recognizing the irony?

• What translation strategies are applied by the translator while translating irony

examples in Sunrise? Which translation strategy is most frequently used?

• To what extent the irony in ST is conveyed to TT? Is there any situation that the

ST’s irony is enhanced, reduced, or even lost in TT?

3.2 Methodology

In this paper, these issues will be examined in a detailed data analysis. The data will be

analyzed in an exhausted way. All irony instances, which are produced in the Chinese

text of Sunrise, will be picked up and compared with their English counterparts. In

addition, the irony examples will be classified into two main categories: (i) the surface

meaning differs from an underlying meaning — difference; (ii) the surface meaning and

underlying meaning appear to be the same. A pragmatic approach will be employed as a

tool to analyze the ST’s irony, including applying relevant pragmatic theories, such as

Grice’s four maxims. Translation strategies are the main focus in TT. A statistic analysis

will be provided in order to show the frequency of different translation strategy used for

translating irony in Sunrise.

20

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

This chapter includes an analysis and discussion of selected irony examples from Sunrise.

In what follows, the analysis of the original is marked [ST], while the analysis of

translation is marked [TT ]. Source and target texts are kept separate in the interests of

reader accessibility. When the irony and insult spring only from a single word and

expression in an example, the relevant words have been highlighted in italics. Both

pragmatic approach and translation strategy are employed and discussed for data analysis.

4.1 Irony Data Classification

Usually, three participants are present for each instance of irony: (1) the speaker or ironist,

(2) the hearer or victim, and (3) an audience or evaluator. (1) and (2) or (2) and (3) can

conflate. To be effective, an instance of irony has to have at least two participants, and it

has to be noted. In order to recognize an instance of irony, participants need linguistic,

contextual, situational and personal background knowledge. Victims may notice the irony,

or be those participants who do not understand, and those who are implicitly attacked.

In the following section, the irony examples are classified into two main categories: (i)

the surface meaning differs from an underlying meaning — difference; (ii) the surface

meaning and underlying meaning appear to be the same. In addition, category (i) is

further divided according to nonce or common irony. The classification is built on the

basis of the source language of the examples — Chinese.

4.2 Irony Analysis

4.2.1The Case of Irony Category (i)

In this category, a speaker says one thing but means another. The utterance meaning is

different from the underlying meaning. The examples from Sunrise are further divided

into nonce and common irony.

21

A. Nonce Irony

Nonce irony is exemplified by those instances of irony that have not habitually been used

for ironic purposes and subsequently lost their original status.

(1) 陈白露：（故意地）你现在真是一天比一天会说话，我一见你就不知话该

打哪儿说起。

PAI-LU (deliberately flattering her): You really are acquiring the gift of the gab

these days. I always find it hard to think of something to say when I meet you.

顾八奶奶：（飘飘然）真的么？

KU (preening herself): Do you mean that?

[ST] In this instance, there are no visible ironic words. PAI-LU violates the Maxim of

Quality. She deliberately pretends to flatter KU, which, however, is not truthful. At the

same time, PAI-LU makes herself the victim of her statement. The differences between

the two victims are that PAI-LU knows her ironic meaning, but KU does not understand

or notice the implicit meaning, which can be demonstrated from her reply. PAI-LU uses a

flattering utterance to imply a negative and ironic meaning.

[TT ] The translator applies both domestication and literal translation strategies in

translating this sentence. The gift of the gab is a verbal and informal phrase in English.

Compared with its Chinese counterpart 会说话, it produces an equivalent effect in the

translation. PAI-LU says praising words to KU, but she actually looks down upon KU.

(2) 陈白露：恭喜你一天比一天地活得有道理，现在你跟胡四居然要讲起“三从

四德”了！

PAI-LU: Congratulations on becoming more respectable every day! Fancy you

and Hu Sze embracing the idea of “submission and propriety”!

顾八奶奶：（翻着眼）咦，你当我是那不三不四、不规矩的坏女人？

22

KU (with an indignant flash of her eyes): What! You don’t imagine I’m a woman

with no character or principles?

[ST] In this case, PAI-LU once again flouts the Maxim of Quality. According to the

context and the character of Hu Sze, PAI-LU’s congratulatory words convey an implicit

meaning that criticizes KU’s ridiculous statement. However, the victim KU recognizes

PAI-LU’s ironic meaning that is reflected by her immediate rhetorical question.

[TT ] In the translation of this instance, it can be found that the translator takes the

context and KU’s reply into account. Free translation strategy is applied in this example.

According to The English-Chinese Dictionary, when respectable is explained as 正派 or

体面, it is often associated with ironic meaning. Although 活得有道理 and respectable

do not have the exact same meanings, respectable successfully conveys the ironic

meaning and responds to“三从四德”and “不三不四、不规矩的坏女人” in the context.

Moreover, the word Fancy expresses surprise or disapproval in this sentence, which

enhances the ironic awareness in TT. To some extent, ST irony is enhanced in TT with

the words which are respectable and fancy. One interesting thing that can be found in this

case is that there are no words habitually used for ironic purposes in ST, but the uses of

respectable and fancy in TT can be the reason for classifying TT into common irony,

which means that they are two words likely to provoke an ironic reading in a certain

sentence.

(3) 陈白露：（讽刺地）怪不得你这么聪明了。

PAI-LU (mockingly): No wonder you’ve become so clever.

顾八奶奶：我告诉你，爱情是你甘心情愿地拿出钱来叫他花，他怎么胡

花，你也不心痛，—那就是爱情！—爱情！

KU: I tell you, love is when you willingly give him money to spend and don’t

mind how he squanders it — that’s what love is! — Yes, that’s love!

(4) 陈白露: 怪不得常听人说爱情是要有代价的。

23

PAI-LU: That explains why I’m always hearing it said that love has its price.

顾八奶奶：是啊，那是一点也不错的。……

KU: Yes, there’s no doubt whatsoever about that. ….

[ST] Both instance (3) and (4) have a similar tone in the utterances, which is attributed to

the use of 怪不得. The utterance with the term of怪不得 usually can either be used for a

statement without any ironic tone, or be used for ironic purposes in Chinese. If the two

instances are considered out of context, they can be interpreted as ironic or non-ironic by

audiences who have different understandings. Thus, it can be found that the ironic

readings for instance (3) and (4) have a great dependence on the context. PAI-LU

purposely breaks the Maxim of Quality, since even she does not believe what she says is

true. In (3), PAI-LU’s utterance implicitly mocks KU’s pride, and implies a rather

opposite meaning of 聪明. In (4), what PAI-LU says is to show her disagreement with

KU’s ridiculous perception of love rather than to support KU’s statement in the light of

the surface meaning of the utterance. In the context of this play, KU does not have shared

knowledge with PAI-LU. It can be the reason why she fails to recognize and notice PAI-

LU’s irony on her. This example is similar to instance (1).

[TT ] The two examples are literally translated into English. In TT, there are also not

specific signs that definitely lead to ironic readings. Like ST, the ironic meanings of (3)

and (4) rely on the context to a great extent. For these two examples, not only are ST and

TT equivalent in form due to the literal translation, but also ST irony becomes TT irony

through same means used in ST.

方达生：…… 竹均，我看得出你也厌恶他们，而你故意装出满不在意的样

子，天天自己骗自己。

TA-SHENG: …. I can see that you loathe them too, Chu-chun, yet you will go on

pretending that you don’t mind, deceiving yourself all the time.

24

(5) 陈白露：（忽然—倔强地嘲讽着）你很相信你自己的聪明。

PAI-LU (bristling with sudden sarcasm): You’ve great faith in your own

cleverness, haven’t you.

方达生：竹均，你又来了。不， 我不聪明。但是我相信你的聪明。你不要

瞒我， 你心里痛苦。请你看在老朋友的份上，我求你不要再跟我倔强。……

TA-SHENG: There you go again, Chu-chun. No, I’m not clever. But I’ve great

faith in your cleverness. Now don’t try to deceive me. You’re unhappy.

Remember we’re old friends, so please don’t keep on being obstinate with me. ….

[ST] In this context, it is not difficult to notice PAI-LU’s ironic meaning. TA-SHENG

has told the truth, but PAI-LU is too obstinate to accept it. Therefore, she in turn mocks

TA-SHENG’s cleverness by saying你很相信你自己的聪明 in order to reject TA-

SHENG’s statement. The word 聪明 is interpreted in a negative way. However, TA-

SHENG recognizes her ironic meaning and ultimate purpose.

[TT ] Literal translation is applied to translate 你很相信你自己的聪明 into English. It is

important that the translator deals with the translation in a form of rhetorical question.

The phrase haven’t you at the end of sentence stresses the opposite of your own

cleverness and the ironic meaning. ST’s irony is enhanced and becomes a bit more

recognizable in TT.

B. Common Irony

In contrast to nonce irony, certain phrases always seem to trigger an ironic interpretation,

even when viewed out of context.

(6) 陈白露：（嘘出一口气）这是此地的上等货色，你看有意思不？

PAI-LU (sighing): One of our choicer local products, don’t you think he’s rather

fun?

25

方达生：我不明白你为什么跟这种东西来往？

TA-SHENG：I can’t think what induces you to mix with such riff-raff.

[ST] In Chinese, 货色 is a derogatory term when it is used to describe a person. PAI-LU

seems to introduce a local upper-class person in this sentence. However, her utterance

hints a meaning that she actually sees this kind of person as “riff-raff”. Moreover, the

adjective 上等 and the rhetorical question at the end of the sentence stress her opposite

meaning. The derogatory irony is recognized by the victim TA-SHENG. PAI-LU and

TA-SHENG have a common view on this kind of person, “riff-raff”, which builds a

cognitive environment as a part of context, and makes the implicit meaning

communication successful between PAI-LU and TA-SHENG.

[TT ] The translator applies the literal translation strategy in TT. Compared with the

original 货色, product not only has a same surface meaning with it, but also is derogatory

in this sentence in being used to describe a person. The word choicer is also important in

creating the ironic meaning: according to the Oxford Dictionary, originally choicer as an

adjective means “uncommonly good”; here it is used ironically to mean exactly the

opposite. In the following rhetorical question, fun is also used in the same way to actually

point to the ironic and opposite meaning.

方达生：（望着白露明灼灼的眼睛）可怕，可怕 — 哦，你怎么现在会一点

顾忌也没有，一点羞耻的心也没有。你难道不知道金钱一迷了心，人生最可宝

贵的爱情，就会像鸟儿似地飞了么？

TA-SHENG (looking into her shining eyes): It’s horrible, horrible — it seems

impossible that you can now have become so unscrupulous, so devoid of any sense of

shame. Sure you realize that once one’s head is turned by a lust for money, the most

precious thing in life — love — will fly away like a bird.

26

(7) 陈白露：（略带酸辛）爱？什么是爱？你是个小孩子！我不跟你谈了。

PAI-LU (with a touch of sorrow): Love? What is love? You’re a child! I’ve

nothing more to say to you.

[ST] There is no doubt that TA-SHENG is an adult. PAI-LU says你是个小孩子, not to

mean TA-SHENG is a child, but in order to satirize TA-SHENG’s romantic idealism and

his ignorance of the real society.

[TT ] One can be described as a child when he or she holds some ignorant, naive or

immature ideas, which is a shared perception between Chinese and English. Thus the

translator applies literal translation in TT without any additional interpretation. ST’s

irony is equivalently conveyed to TT.

张乔治：那是因为我太喜欢了。我一刻也忘不了我就要成为世界上最幸福的

人，我知道你一定会嫁给我。……

GEORGY: And that was because I was so overjoyed. I couldn’t get over the

realization that I was going to be the luckiest man in the world, because I knew

you’d marry me. ….

….

(8) 陈白露：这屋子忽然酸得厉害。我要吸一点新鲜空气。

PAI-LU: I want to breathe some fresh air. There’s awful fug in here all of a

sudden.

方达生：酸？

TA-SHENG：Fug?

陈白露：（讥诮地）可不是，你闻不出来？

PAI-LU (scathingly): Why, yes, can’t you smell it?

27

[ST] 酸 is a very interesting word in Chinese. Due to the cultural factor, 酸 is often used

to describe an affected or hypocritical behavior or speech, or even can be used for the

person who poses such behavior and speech; it is associated with a strong ironic meaning

when the word is used in this way. In this context, PAI-LU does not actually mean there

is awful fug, but is mocking GEORGY’s affected and hypocritical speech.

[TT ] The word 酸 is less translatable into English since it is quite bound to Chinese

culture. The translator applies free translation in this sentence. However, the phrase awful

fug’s hidden meaning is different to that expressed by the Chinese word酸 ; the phrase is

less likely to trigger an ironic interpretation compared with酸 in ST. Thus ST irony is

weakened in TT somewhat. In addition, I would like to discuss the translation of the side

text “讥诮地” which directs PAI-LU’s following speech here, though it is not considered

as one of the irony examples in Sunrise. It is not very appropriate that “讥诮地” is

translated into “scathingly”. Considering the lower translatability of the word 酸 between

Chinese and English, if “讥诮地” is translated into “sneeringly” or “derisively”, it would

be helpful as a context clue for target audiences to understand the irony originating from

the phrase awful fug above.

李石清：那么，经理仿佛是不预备跟我讲信用了。

LI: Then it appears, sir, that you’re not prepared to keep your word to me.

(9) 潘月亭：（尖酸地）这句话真不象你这么聪明的人说的。

PAN (acidly): That’s not the sort of remark one would have expected from a

clever man like you.

(10) 李石清：经理自然是比我们聪明。

LI: Well, of course, you’re much cleverer than the rest of us, sir.

28

潘月亭：那倒也不见得。不过我也许明白一个很要紧的小道理。就是对那种

太自作聪明的坏蛋，我有时可以绝对不讲信用的。……

PAN: Not necessarily. But it may be that I do have one small streak of common-

sense on one important point: I may sometimes utterly refuse to keep my word to

self-opinionated scoundrels. ….

[ST] The examples above are some of the most interesting verbal dialogues in Sunrise.

PAN and LI employ irony on each other. Both example (9) and (10) refer to a word 聪

明， which is important for provoking the ironic meanings in these two examples. It

seems that PAN and LI praise the cleverness of each other, yet both of them imply the

exactly opposite and negative meaning of 聪明 in the context: PAN actually sees LI as a

“self-opinionated scoundrel”; LI considers PAN as an “old fool”.

[TT ] The translator applies literal translation in example (9) and (10). It is the same with

ST, that the context has a great influence on the ironic interpretation of these two

examples in TT. ST’s irony becomes TT irony.

(11) 潘月亭：（点起雪茄）好，我不陪了，你以后没事可以常到这儿来玩玩，

以后你爱称呼我什么就称呼我什么，你叫我月亭也可以；称兄道弟，跟我“你呀

我呀”地说话也可以；现在我们是平等了！再见。

PAN (lighting a cigar): Well, I’ll be off now. Drop in for a chat any time you’re

free. And you can call me what you please, Yueh-ting if you like; you can drop the

sirs and call me “old chap” if you like, now that we’re on an equal footing! Good-

bye.

[ST] There was a hierarchy in the Chinese traditional culture, which involved both family

and society. Under the background of the play Sunrise, the hierarchy still exists in the

society at the given time. According to the context, LI blackmails PAN with some of

29

PAN’s secrets, and thinks that he can consequently deal with PAN on an equal footing.

Therefore, LI just directly calls PAN’s name instead of using his title or sir that actually

should be used following the hierarchical cultural convention. What PAN says to LI in

the instance (11) is aimed to inform LI that there still is a big gap between them: LI can

not call PAN whatever he pleases; they can never be on an equal footing. Those

meanings are exactly opposite to PAN’s utterance, which is interpreted with irony.

[TT ] The translator applies a comprehensive strategy including literal translation,

omission and domestication to translate this instance. 称兄道弟 is translated into the

phrase you can drop the sirs and call me “old chap” by domestication. According to the

Oxford Dictionary, chap is an informal word, and is a friendly form of address between

men and boys. This phrase provides equivalent response of the Chinese word称兄道弟

within the target audience. It seems that the original phrase跟我“你呀我呀”地说话也可

以 is less translatable to English for cultural reasons. It is omitted in TT. However, this

omission does not affect the implicit meaning of PAN’s utterance in TT, because the

same effect produced by this phrase has been carried out by the phrase you can drop the

sirs and call me “old chap”. What TT loses is only a stress on the same meaning. There

is not a failure to convey the meaning. In order to understand the irony of this example, it

is important that the translator or target audiences have knowledge of the Chinese

traditional hierarchical culture.

4.2.2The Case of Irony Category (ii)

In this category, the surface meaning and underlying meaning appear to be the same.

Literal utterances are intended to be interpreted at face value or as sentence meaning.

There is no opposition or divergence between a surface and an underlying meaning.

However, those literal utterances often have an ambiguity, which means they can be

understood in more than one way. The ambiguity builds a ground from which the ironic

meaning derives.

30

(12) 方达生：（笑了笑）哦，看你住的地方，很讲究。

TA-SHENG (with a brief smile): This place you’ve got here, it’s quite nice.

陈白露：（明白他的意思，但也不屑解辩，顺手拾起脚边一个靠枕，丢在

沙发上，不在意地）住的过去就是了。

PAI-LU (she realizes what is in his mind but does not think it worth making

excuses. She casually picks up a cushion that is lying at her feet and drops it on

the sofa.): Somewhere to live, it’s good enough for that.

[ST] PAI-LU lives alone in a luxuriously-furnished hotel room. 很讲究 here can be

interpreted with two meanings. One is its surface meaning that describes the nice room.

However, TA-SHENG thinks the money made by PAI-LU is not in an honorable way.

Thus he does not agree with PAI-LU’s luxurious life style. This ironic meaning can be

understood with the support of the side text in PAI-LU’s reply, which is the sentence “she

realizes what is in his mind but does not think it worth making excuses”.

[TT ] It is not easy to find an exactly equivalent of 讲究 in English. 讲究 is freely

translated into nice, which is one of TA-SHENG’s meaning in this example. The other

meaning, as discussed in ST, can be understood with the context clue.

陈白露：你真是书呆子，到我这里来的朋友没有等我让座的。抽烟吗？

PAI-LU：You are old-fashioned. None of my friends that come to see me here

ever wait to be asked before they sit down! Smoke?

方达生：（瞪她一眼）方才告诉过你，我不会抽烟。

TA-SHENG (staring at her): I told you just a moment ago that I don’t smoke.

(13) 陈白露：（善意地讥讽着他）你真是个好人！

PAI-LU (good-humouredly mocking him): You are a paragon of virtue!

31

[ST] In the context, TA-SHENG’s behaviors accord with the custom and law. He is

educated, idealistic and somewhat pedantic. PAI-LU mocks him as old-fashioned in that

society, yet she can not deny that TA-SHENG really has a good quality which those

“upper-class friends” of hers do not have. In this instance, PAI-LU really means that TA-

SHENG is a 好人. At the same time, she mocks TA-SHENG’s old-fashioned behavior,

which is a positive-meaning irony between friends.

[TT ] The translator applies free translation in TT. Compared with the original 好人, the

phrase a paragon of virtue explains TA-SHENG’s good quality in a more specific term,

which helps the target audiences to understand what PAI-LU means.

(14) 方达生：（厌恶）你大概是个唱花旦的。

TA-SHENG (with distaste): And I suppose you’re the soubrette.

胡四：好眼力！不敢，会一点。……

HU SZE: Good eyes you’ve got — well, actually, I’m not very good at it,

though I do go in for it. ….

[ST] This is a very interesting example. TA-SHENG is disgusted with HU SZE’s

feminine tone and manner. The ambiguity created in this sentence can be explained as: a)

as the utterance meaning, TA-SHENG assumes that HU SZE plays a female role in

Chinese opera; b) by saying that, TA-SHENG implies that HU SZE’s distasteful feminine

behavior is obvious to all in order to show his irony. However, HU SZE is proud of his

so-called good look and behavior, and does not realize TA-SHENG’s irony.

[TT ] 花旦 is literally translated into soubrette. However, it would be more appropriate to

make a footnote to explain花旦’s meaning and application in Chinese.

32

(15) 潘月亭：信用？（大笑）你要谈信用？信用我不是不讲，可是要看对谁。

我想我活了这么大年纪，我该明白跟哪一类人才可以讲信用，跟哪一类人就根

本用不着讲信用的。

PAN: Keep one’s word? (Laughing aloud) Is that what you’re worried about,

keeping one’s word? It’s no that I never keep my word, but it depends who to.

And after being around all these years I ought to know who to keep my word to

and who not.

……

潘月亭：那倒也不见得。不过我也许明白一个很要紧的小道理。就是对那

种太自作聪明的坏蛋，我有时可以绝对不讲信用的。……

PAN: Not necessarily. But it may be that I do have one small streak of

common-sense on one important point: I may sometimes utterly refuse to keep my

word to self-opinionated scoundrels. ….

[ST] With regard to the sentence我该明白跟哪一类人才可以讲信用，跟哪一类人就

根本用不着讲信用的, PAN explains his principle on credit. At the same time, PAN also

mocks that LI belongs to those to whom he refuses to keep his word, which can be

realized from his following statement.

[TT ] Literal translation is applied in TT. The recognition of TT’s irony also depends on

the context.

4.3 Translation Strategy Frequency of Use

Table 4.3.1:

33

Literal

Translation Free

Translation Domestication Omission

Nonce Irony 3 1 1

Common Irony 4 1 1 1

Irony without opposite meaning to utterance 2 2

Total 9 4 2 1

Graph 4.3.2:

56%

25%

13%

6%

Literal Translation

Free Translation

Domestication

Omission

As shown in the table and graph above, literal translation strategy is most frequently used

to translate examples of irony in Sunrise. In each category of examples of irony, it is also

applied more frequently than other translation strategies.

Chapter 5 Findings & Conclusion

5.1 Irony Category (i)

34

This category includes examples of irony in which utterance meaning is different from

the underlying meaning. Speakers violate Grice’s Maxim of Quality. They all say one

thing, but mean the exact opposite to it. What they do not say but mean is significant for

the ironic reading.

In nonce irony, there is no specific ironic remark in the utterance. According to the data

analysis, the recognition of irony is based on the context and a cognitive environment,

which is the shared knowledge or experience between speaker and victim. If speaker and

victim have a shared knowledge or view, the victim often can notice the speaker’s irony,

and vice versa. The examples showed that the translator achieved linguistic and cultural

equivalence in his translation by employing various different translation strategies, such

as literal translation, domestication and free translation. ST irony also appears to be

enhanced in TT to some extent, thus TT irony is rendered more recognizable. One

interesting finding from the data analysis is that there are no words habitually used for

ironic purposes in ST, but some words or phrases express ironic meanings in TT after

translation. Therefore, ST and TT in these particular examples belong to different

categories of irony. It indicates that the classification of irony can only be based on one

language, and it is not applicable to two languages at the same time.

In common irony, certain words or phrases always seem to trigger an ironic interpretation.

According to the analysis, the context of this play and a shared knowledge between

speaker and victim play important roles in understanding irony. This study finds that the

untranslatability of some culturally-specific terms between Chinese and English

influences the equivalent transmission of ST irony to TT, which causes ST irony to be

weakened in TT. In addition, some examples showed that knowledge of the source

language’s culture is important for the translator and target audiences to understand the

ST’s irony. Literal translation, free translation, omission and domestication were used by

the translator to render the examples of irony. In particular, free translation, omission and

domestication were employed most commonly by the translator to tackle those culturally-

specific terms and phrases.

35

5.2 Irony Category (ii)

This category includes examples of irony in which surface meaning and underlying

meaning appear to be the same. There is no opposition or divergence between a surface

and an underlying meaning.

This study finds that examples of irony in this category always have two meaning. One is

the surface meaning of the sentence. The other one stems from the understanding of the

context in general and the extension of the sentence meaning in particular. These two

meanings are not opposite to each other. The ironic reading derives from this kind of

ambiguity in the sentences. The irony is not easy to understand in this case. Since the

contextual understanding and knowledge of victims and audiences are different, those

literal utterances displaying ambiguity can be fully understood or only can only be

understood in one way, which is normally the surface meaning of the sentence. As a

consequence the ST’s ambiguity is difficult to be transmitted to the TT by translation, no

matter which translation strategy is used. In TT, it is similar to ST in that recognition of

the ambiguity and irony depends on victims and audiences’ contextual understanding and

knowledge to a great extent. Consequently, it is difficult to investigate that to what extent

the irony in ST is conveyed to TT. There is, however, one situation in which the ST

ambiguity can be effectively conveyed by translation: that is the situation in which the

words and phrases in ST are habitually used to produce the ambiguity, while there are

exact equivalent words or phrases can be found in the target language. However, this kind

of example is rare in the play Sunrise.

5.3 Conclusion

36

This study has shown that the pragmatic approach is very useful for the analysis of irony

in Cao Yu’s Sunrise. In irony category (i), Quality implicature is frequently employed by

speakers for their ironic purposes. The context is vital for the understanding of irony in

all examples. Irony is more complex to understand as it requires a good degree of shared

knowledge between speakers and victims. On the other hand, victims and audiences’

knowledge and ideologies influence their abilities to recognize irony.

Literal translation strategy is most frequently used to translate irony examples in Sunrise.

In irony category (i), it was found that ST irony could be rendered into equivalent TT

irony. Additionally, ST irony could also be enhanced or weakened in TT for reasons of

the differences between Chinese and English, and the untranslatability of some culturally-

specific terms between these two languages. In irony category (ii), since the ironic

reading derives from the ambiguity, it is difficult to investigate to what extent the irony in

ST is conveyed to TT. The context and relevant knowledge of the source language’s

culture is important for the translator and target audiences to understand the ST’s irony.

One limitation of this study is that this paper mainly focuses on examples of irony in the

Chinese play Sunrise. The findings can not be assumed to apply to and explain all irony

situations that occur in verbal dialogues.

Bibliography

37

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge.

Berman, A. (1985). La traduction comme épreuve de l'étranger / Translation and the trials

of the foreign (L. Venuti, Trans.). In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 284-297). London and New York: Routledge.

Booth, W. C. (1961). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago/London: University of Chicago

Press. Bradbrook, M. (1972). Literature in Action. Studies in Continental and Commonwealth

Society. London: Chatto and Windus. Clark, H., & Gerrig, J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental

Psychology General 113(1), 121-126. Culter, A. (1974). On saying what you mean without meaning what you say. Paper

presented at the The 10th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Faull, K. M. (2004). Introduction. In G. Clingham (Ed.), Translation and Culture (pp. 17).

Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. Fowler, H. (1926). Fowler’s Modern English Usage. OUP. Gentzler. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2002). A New Look at Literal Meaning in Understanding What Is Said

and Implicated. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 34(4), 457-486.

Grice, P. (1989). Further Notes on Logic and Conversation In H.P. (Ed.), Studies in the

Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grice, P. (1989). Logic and Conversation. In H.P. (Ed.), Studies in the Way of Words.

Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press. Gutt, E. A. (1996). On nature and treatment of implicit information in literary translation:

A relevance-theoretic perspective. International Journal of Translation Studies(8), 241–256.

Ingarden, R. (1973). The Literary Word or Art. An Investigation on the Borderlines of

Ontology, Logic and the Theory of Literature. With an Appendix on the Functions of Language in the Theatre (G. G. Grabowicz, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern

38

University Press. Kaufer, D. S. (1981). Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5,

495-510. Leech, G. (1981). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press. Leech, G. N. (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman. Linder, D. (2002). Translating Irony in Popular Fiction: Raymond Chandler’s The Big

Sleep. Babel, 47(2), 97– 108. Mark, C., & Moira, S. (Eds.). (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester, UK:

St. Jerome Publication. Mazi-Leskovar, D. (2003). Domestication and Foreignization in Translating American

Prose for Slovenian Children. Translation for children(48), 250-265. Morini, M. (2007). Say what you mean, mean what you say: a pragmatic analysis of the

Italian translations of Emma. Language and Literature, 16(1), 5-19. Morris, C. (1971). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In T. E. Sebeok (Ed.), Writings on

the General Theory of Signs (pp. 13–71): The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Newmark, P. (1993). Paragraphs on Translation. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide:

Multilingual Matters Ltd. Nida, E. A. (1982). Translating meaning. San Dimas, CA: English Language Institute. Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The Theory and Pratice of Translation. Leiden: E. J.

Brill. Schleiermacher, F. (1813). Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens/On the

different methods of translating (D. Robinson, Trans.). In D. Robinson (Ed.), Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (pp. 225-238). Manchester: St Jerome.

Sperber D. & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.),

Radical pragmatics (pp. 295-318). New York: Academic Press. Sperber D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford:

Blackwell. Sperber D. & Wilson, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87, 53-76. Van den Broeck, R. (1981). The Limits of Translatability Exemplified by Metaphor

39

Translation. Poetics Today, 2(4), 73-87. Venuti, L. (Ed.). (1992). Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology.

London and New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (1995a). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and

New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (1995b). Translation and the formation of cultural identities. In C. Schäffner &

H. Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), Cultural Functions of Translation (pp. 9-25). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Venuti, L. (1998). Strategies of translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

Translation Studies (pp. 240-244). London and New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (1999). L'invisibilita del traduttore: una storia della traduzione (M. Guglielmi,

Trans.). Roma: Armando Editore. Wellwarth, G. E. (1987). Special Considerations in Drama Translation. In M. G. R. (Ed.),

Translation in the Humanities (pp. 53-59). Binghamton: State University of New York.